G.R. No. L-3139

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Santos obtained a judgment against defendant-appellant Celestino Villafuerte on June 29, 1905. A dispute arose as to when the appellant was notified of said judgment, with the appellant claiming notification on July 3 and the appellee claiming July 1. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial on July 7, which was denied by the trial court on July 29. On the same day, the appellant excepted to the order and gave notice of his intention to present a bill of exceptions, which he subsequently filed on August 4. The appellee moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions, arguing, among other points, that the motion for a new trial was not made or decided during the same court term in which the case was tried.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant’s bill of exceptions should be dismissed on the ground that his motion for a new trial was not made and decided during the term of court in which the judgment was rendered.

RULING:
No, the bill of exceptions should not be dismissed. The Supreme Court held that neither the making nor the decision of a motion for a new trial is required by law to occur within the term of court during which the case was tried. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a judge to set aside a judgment and grant a new trial during the term, does not impose a mandatory timeframe for the filing of such a motion. More importantly, Section 497, which governs the right to a review of evidence, does not condition that right upon the motion being filed or decided within the term. The Court further reasoned that to require the motion to be decided within the term would unjustly allow a judge’s delay in ruling to deprive a party of the statutory right to appeal, for which the moving party bears no responsibility. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions was denied.